RE: Parent meets requirement of statute MEANS Parent is Citizen, therefore Citizenship is granted means the child is born a citizen by virtue of Meeting requirements of statute AND Parent being citizen.
How is it incoherent?
Suppose a country X has a law that states that if you are a US citizen and leave to live in another country for several years without returning, you must return at least twice within the 10 years you are resident of another country in order to RETAIN your citizenship in country X.
Obviously:
1) You are a citizen of X.
2) However, you are in danger of losing your citizenship if you do not meet the requirement of coming back at least twice within 10 years.
Suppose further country X has a law that states that your child takes your citizenship (whatever it is ) at the time of his birth.
#1 is your condition by birth
#2 is your condition by statute.
If you fulfill #2, #1 is RETAINED.
if you have do not fulfill #2, #1 is revoked.
You fulfilled #2. Therefore, what follows? #1 is retained.
Therefore the child takes your citizenship which was originally #1 at birth.
#1 is still the BASE DETERMINATIVE factor for the child’s citizenship. #2 is a factor I will concede, but it is not the MAIN one.
But assuming that as you argue #2 is the determinative factor, where in the framer’s writings and intent tells us that it says that the factor “by statute” therefore means the child is not natural born?
The sentence makes no sense. It’s gobbledegook.